I remember listening to the original Rachel Maddow show on KTLK AM radio in Los Angels long before MSNBC offered Maddow the opportunity to bring her progressive dialog to the national cable television news circuit. Not much has changed except now you can see her and Republicans are still scared shitless of her sharp interview skills. I would go a step further and suggest that they are borderline "harsh interrogation techniques" to barrow a phrase from the other side of the aisle.

It's no wonder 9 out of 10 republican politicians and pundits respectfully decline offers to appear on her show. However, I think it would be a safe bet to assume that 10 out of 10 are TEVOing her ass on a daily basis. Now there is a sponsored poll on FaceBook with a title designed to tease and entice. "IS RACHEL MADDOW DANGEROUS?" - And of course the answer is not cut and dry. My answer would be "yes, but it depends." - If all you have to bring to a discussion with Maddow are tired old talking points, you're going to wish you'd been one of the 9 out of 10.

The fact that the question "is Maddow dangerous?" has even been raised makes it obvious that sombody is nervous over the vast influance Maddow had developed since the launch of her cable news show. Even former President George H.W. Bush has referred to Maddow as "one sick puppy" for her commentary over his son, President George W. Bush. Maddow has been frequently attacked, but rarely over her commentary. Maddow's detractors often level snarky comments over her sexual orientation, her off screen appearance, and recently her resembalance to Canadian teen heart throb Justin Beiber.

If you look at the MSNBC line up, Dr. Maddow's team makes better use of an hour that Dylan Ratigan, Martin Bashir, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Ed Shultz, and Lawrence O'Donnell could ever hope to achieve. I shouldn't even have added Dylan Ratigan to the list. In fact, my 80 year old mother often suggest that Dylan Ratigan should change the name of his hour to "The Dylan Fullofshitagain Show.